How far should the paparazzi be allowed to go?

[CatInASuit]

Russell Brand was recently arrested at the airport after a hitting paparazzi who decided to try and get upskirt shots of his fiancee Katy Perry. Now I don't like Russell Brand much, but can quite happily sympathise with his actions and would say that the cameraman in question had gone too far.

The question is how far is too far?

In the celebrity papers, photo shots of celebrities being less than perfect or even just relaxing have become a staple and big money is paid for it.

From topless shots of unwitting celebs to shots of Diana in that car crash to being aggressive to celebs to get them to react, the paparazzi have gained an unsavoury reputation.

So what safeguards would you put in to allow them to do their job while allowing a certain amount of security and privacy to celebs?

[Zuul]

That is a really difficult question. While I find Russell Brand annoying, I can sympathize. Nobody should be shoving a camera under someone's dress, regardless of whether she's famous or not.

But as far as safeguards go, since common human decency isn't enough, what is there to do? I think touching someone, invading their personal space (and skirt!), pursuing them in a vehicle, taking pictures of walled private property or through windows, any pictures that are only possible with the aid of what amounts to spy cameras, etc. should all be disallowed. Yet without some sort of punishment and repercussions for engaging in those behaviors, they wouldn't stop. I don't know. I find the whole paparazzi thing distasteful anyway, so if those actions were made illegal I wouldn't lose any sleep over the lack of topless sunbathing shots of celebritities.

[Orual]

I would have no problem with there being some sort of 'class action' restraining order that people could get against creepy stalkerish photographers.

Wouldn't attempting to take pictures up someone's skirt be some kind of assault?

[Zuul]

I'd assume so, Orual.

[Top to Bottom]

So what safeguards would you put in to allow them to do their job while allowing a certain amount of security and privacy to celebs?

Why would I want to allow them to do their jobs? Their job being to get unauthorized pictures of celebrities doing something stupid or living their private lives.

[Sarahfeena]

Anything that's illegal for any random person on the street to do should be illegal for the paparazzi to do. I would assume that includes trying to stick a camera up someone's skirt, or otherwise assault their person.

[Clothahump]

The photographer should have been arrested for trying that upskirt shot. Personally, I don't think paparazzi should be allowed within 100 yards of anyone and if they do get that close, it should be considered open season on them. No bag limit, either.

[Peeta Mellark]

Anything that's illegal for any random person on the street to do should be illegal for the paparazzi to do. I would assume that includes trying to stick a camera up someone's skirt, or otherwise assault their person.

I'd certainly agree, but the fact that technology is making it much, much easier to invade someone's privacy without getting close to them is an issue that's going to have to be dealt with. For all of our sake, we're going to have to start looking into better legislation to protect privacy.

[What Exit?]

The photographer should have been arrested for trying that upskirt shot. Personally, I don't think paparazzi should be allowed within 100 yards of anyone and if they do get that close, it should be considered open season on them. No bag limit, either.

Sometimes I just really agree with Clothahump and this is one of them. The no bag limit had me laughing too.

[Sarahfeena]

I'd certainly agree, but the fact that technology is making it much, much easier to invade someone's privacy without getting close to them is an issue that's going to have to be dealt with. For all of our sake, we're going to have to start looking into better legislation to protect privacy.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think it is going to have to come down to whether or not the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time. That is, if a person's in a public place...outside or sitting at a restaurant table, for instance, then they are fair game. If they are in a dressing room, bathroom, or someplace else that's private, then that's off-limits. And taking pictures of any body parts they wouldn't normally have on display in public would fall under that umbrella, too.

[Myglaren]

I can't abide Russel Brand but cannot fault his reaction in this instance.

It is a punishable offence to take upskirt pictures and while I do not have a cite for it I can recall two instances where men have been jailed for it, both on public transport, one on the subway in NY and one on a bus in London. No doubt there are many more instances that I have not been aware of.

The Paparazzi are indeed a despicable crowd. It is unfortunate that the need of the general populace to see and know everything about the 'celebrities' only fuels there fervour. Bastards.

[ivan astikov]

Papparazzi? Parasites, every last one of them, standing a smidgen above the ones who employ them* on the evolutionary ladder.


*( Yes, I'm looking at you Russell Brand and Katie Perry!)

[Sarahfeena]

What's your definition of a parasite?

[ivan astikov]

Something that lives off the backs of other creatures. If there were no celebrities, they might be doing something useful, instead of feeding a niche market.

[Sarahfeena]

Eh, shrug, it's still a market. And if there were no paparazzi, there would probably be a lot less cache in being a celebrity, and THOSE folks might be doing something useful, too.